Downloads in this report
Valencia meeting report
App1-List of participants

Links
in this page

• CIDE Centro Inv. Desertificación
  

International User Group Meeting
Valencia, Spain, 21-22 April 2005

A total of 31 scientists and policy makers from 17 European countries joined 22 researchers from six countries in Valencia, on 21-22 April 2005, to discuss policy issues relating to the conservation and sustainable management of Fraxinus (ash) genetic resources in Europe. The participants are listed at the end of the report in Appendix 1. (also, download here the list of participants). The meeting was organised by FRAXIGEN, a research project funded under the European Union 5^th Framework which started in January 2002 and is due to end in June 2005. The host institution for the meeting was the Centro de Investigaciones sobre Desertificación (CIDE) which is based at Albal, outside Valencia.

The overall objective of FRAXIGEN is to strengthen the scientific basis for the sustainable conservation and regeneration of European ash species by improving our understanding of the dynamic biological and ecological processes which have shaped them. The specific scientific objectives are:

• 1. To study the patterns of gene flow and genetic diversity in three European Fraxinus species, and how these are influenced by variation in reproductive systems;
  
• 2. To study how natural ash populations have adapted to their environment, and how anthropogenic selection for productive characters has affected adaptive variation;
  
• 3. To provide guidance for governmental, private and public interest groups on the collection, exploitation and conservation of ash genetic resources.
  
  

FRAXIGEN’s approach is pan-European, involving partners from Greece, Spain, Romania, Slovakia, Sweden and UK, and representing important parts of the native range of all three European Fraxinus species: F. excelsior, F. angustifolia and F. ornus.

The meeting had two principal aims: to inform policy makers across Europe about the principal findings of the research, now that the project is drawing to an end; and to discuss the translation of the findings into practical recommendations for both policy and practice (corresponding to the third objective of FRAXIGEN).

Thursday 21 April

The meeting was opened by Patricio Garcia-Fayos, the Deputy Director of CIDE. After his welcome address to the meeting participants, the coordinator of FRAXIGEN, Janet Stewart, gave a general introduction to the FRAXIGEN project.

Janet Stewart (OFI, UK): General introduction to FRAXIGEN project

The rest of the meeting on 21 April was divided into three sessions:

Session 1: FRAXIGEN research findings and their policy implications

This session consisted of three presentations. The first two addressed findings relating to Objective 1 of FRAXIGEN, and the third was concerned with the issues relating to local adaptation which are addressed by Objective 2. The presentations can be viewed by clicking on the links below. The information contained in these presentations will be covered in more detail in the book which will be produced by FRAXIGEN during the summer of 2005: the book will also be available on the web site.

• Miguel Verdú (CIDE, Spain): Genetic variation and reproductive biology in F. angustifolia and F. ornus: implications for seed collection and seed orchard design.

• Sarah Rendell (OFI , UK): Genetic variation and reproductive biology in F. excelsior: implications for seed collection and seed orchard design.

• David Boshier (OFI, UK): Local adaptation: implications for provenance delimitation and seed source selection.

Session 2: Country case studies

Invited participants involved with forest policy issues in different countries gave short presentations summarising their countries’ national policies relating to forest reproductive material, and in particular to the ways in which ‘local’ seed sources and defined and delineated. Presentations of about 10 minutes each from the six countries participating in the FRAXIGEN project were followed by shorter submissions from seven other countries, as follows:

	‘FRAXIGEN’ countries:
	Click on the countries below for presentations	Click on the names below for photographs
	Spain Greece UK Sweden Romania Slovakia	Marta Dopazo González Despoina Paitaridou Simon Pryor Gunnar Isacsson and Lennart Ackzell Gheorghe Marin Rudolf Bruchanik
	Click on the countries below for presentations	Click on the names below for photographs
	‘Non-FRAXIGEN’ countries:
	Czech Republic Croatia Lithuania Ukraine Turkey Germany Italy	Michal Hrib Sasa Bogdan Alfas Pliura Viktor Kostiv Nebi Bilir Wilfried Steiner Piero Belletti

Each of these presentations can be accessed by clicking on the links from the countries above. Together they give a valuable overview of how European policy on forest reproductive material (FRM) is interpreted and implemented in different countries across the continent.

Session 3: Discussion and recommendations

In this final session, the participants divided into working groups by geographic region, reflecting the different species priorities in different parts of Europe:

• Central/Eastern Europe (all three species): Groups A & B.

• Northern Europe (F. excelsior): Groups C & D.

• Mediterranean (F. angustifolia and F. ornus): Group E.

The participants were allocated to groups so as to represent as many countries as possible in each group, with 8-12 participants in each group. Each group was asked to address six questions, in the light of the information they had been given about FRAXIGEN during Session 1. After about an hour of discussion, a representative of each group reported back to the plenary concluding session. In addition, participants were invited to submit short individual written responses if there were issues which they felt had not been given sufficient weight by the group as a whole, or which were country-specific. The key points identified by each of the working groups, in response to each of the questions, are summarised below. Group C (Northern Europe) covered the issues more broadly, rather than addressing each question in turn; their comments are given at the end of this section.

At the end of the working group discussion, Gerry Douglas, the coordinator of the RAP project gave a short summary of the project’s main outputs..

Conclusions and recommendations from the working groups

1. List the most important policy and/or management issues for Fraxinus end users in your region or country.

Group A (Central/Eastern Europe)

• There should be more recognition of different ash species (F. excelsior/F. angustifolia) in forest policy, management plans, forest inventories and statistics.

• There was widespread planting of poplar on ash sites after World War II; this is now in poor condition and needs to be better managed or replanted with appropriately sourced ash.

• There is a need to optimise silvicultural management practices, especially in border areas (e.g. Slovakia/Ukraine border: good natural stands on one side but not the other).

Group B (Central/Eastern Europe)

• Species identity (distinguishing between F. excelsior and F. angustifolia):

• Inclusion of F. angustifolia in forest legislation concerning forest reproductive material (FRM) and forest management.
  
• Correct use of F. excelsior and F. angustifolia according to the ecological requirements of each species and the ecological conditions of a particular site.
  
• Development of reliable and usable identification keys, and field training for practical foresters in the identification of these species
  

• Certification of all sources of ash FRM, setting rules for private and State owners. This needs better supervision, and mechanisms and incentives to encourage owners to follow rules on FRM (provenance regions/seed zones, seed stand approval, transfers of FRM, and supervision of the whole process).

• Greater use of broadleaves, including Fraxinus, for replanting should be promoted throughout the region.

Group D (Northern Europe)

• Management: Natural regeneration is the most common means of propagation for F. excelsior in Northern Europe and should be further encouraged by better protection from wild herbivores, particularly deer, with fencing.

• Policy: Policies should focus on the conservation of genetic diversity and adaptability (phenotypic plasticity).

Group E (Mediterranean)

• An inventory of genetic resources is needed.

• Regulation (legal and policy framework) needed for forest resources and production of forest reproductive material

• Criteria needed for definition of provenance regions; there are currently many differences between countries in how this is done.

• Studies to characterise provenances, to help with seed source selection.

• There is a lack of technical knowledge about where and how to collect (or conserve) and process seeds and plants for reforestation and restoration purposes.

• There is a dichotomy between:

• production forestry: sourcing of improved material (and how improved is it?).
  
• restoration forestry: how to ensure enough variability.
  
  

2. Which of the research findings of FRAXIGEN do you think would be useful in your country? In what ways?

Group A (Central/Eastern Europe)

• The most useful results are those concerning genetic diversity of populations, and the reproductive system, particularly the data on pollen flow. These will be useful in planning seed orchards and re-considering current seed zoning policies.

Group B (Central/Eastern Europe)

• Findings on the balance between genetic diversity and background pollination (gene flow from outside the population) in relation to seed collection and seed orchard design for commercial forestry and natural woodland restoration.

• The fact that phylogeographic patterns indicate that genetically homogeneous zones (in terms of chloroplast haplotypes) are larger that the scale of a single country, whilst at the same time, the reciprocal transplant experiments (RTEs) do not show any clear patterns of local adaptation. Considering this, it would be reasonable to reconsider the numbers of provenance regions/seed zones within countries; perhaps there could be fewer separate zones.

Group D (Northern Europe)

• The reciprocal transplant experiments (RTEs), used in FRAXIGEN to examine the scale and extent of localised adaptation in ash, gave valuable insights into the issue of plasticity in scattered, migrating species.

• Definition of discrete provenances is more useful than the concept of ‘zones’ (used, for example, for conifer species in continuous boreal forest in the Nordic countries), in which seed must be collected within a defined distance (radius) from the planting site.

Group E (Mediterranean)

• Results on adaptability of the different provenances are very interesting.

• Guidelines on how to collect seeds from natural stands and from seed orchards would be useful.

3. Which findings will not be useful, or you disagree with them?

Group A (Central/Eastern Europe)

• Data on differences in male and hermaphrodite reproductive success has no immediate practical significance (though it could have in the future, for seed orchard design).

• Data on chloroplast haplotypes also has no practical value at present.

Group B (Central/Eastern Europe)

• The RTEs may be too small in their scale and too short in their duration for reliable practical recommendations, though their value in focusing on adaptive traits was recognised. The necessity of more wide-scale provenance research, and the usefulness of all common-garden experiments, was emphasised.

Group D (Northern Europe)

• The study of chloroplast DNA (haplotype) variation, although giving interesting information about post-glacial migration routes, does not give any practically useful information about adaptation.

Group E (Mediterranean)

• Phylogenetic patterns (haplotype diversity) are interesting but will not be useful to end users.

• Early age identification of gender is not feasible in F. excelsior, so seed orchard design based on the distribution of different genders will not be possible.

• The group felt that collection of seeds in mast years is probably better than in non-mast years, despite the project findings suggesting the opposite.

4. Could the results of FRAXIGEN be used to address other issues not mentioned so far?

Group A (Central/Eastern Europe)

• More emphasis should be given to practical forestry measures and tree improvement.

Group B (Central/Eastern Europe)

• The data on gene flow could be used to examine the effect of the age of trees on rates of gene flow and background pollination. Centre and edge trees were compared, but age structure may also be important. This is an important aspect within the framework of dynamic gene conservation.

• What conclusions can be drawn for designing breeding populations in ash?

Group D (Northern Europe)

• It would be very useful to consider the results in the context of climate change.

Group E (Mediterranean)

• Phylogenetic studies might be useful to give insights about other species associated with Fraxinus.

5. Is there further research that would make the present FRAXIGEN research more useful to you?

Group A (Central/Eastern Europe)

• More research is needed on quantitative traits, particularly those with adaptive significance, e.g. time of flushing, including more provenance and progeny trials.

• In general, the research should be expanded to cover a broader area, with more countries involved, to allow more comprehensive conclusions to be drawn.

Group B (Central/Eastern Europe)

• The research should be extended to F. pallisae and F. coriarifolia and various morphological forms of ashes, since the incidence of these taxa and forms is geographically determined.

• It would be useful to determine the extent of inter-specific gene flow in mixed F. excelsior/F. angustifolia stands, or in regions where the stands of different species are separated by small distances. The species overlap phenologically, but do they use this overlap or are they isolated genetically?

Group D (Northern Europe)

• Phenotypic plasticity (adaptability to a range of environments) could be investigated further by a detailed re-examination of existing provenance trials.

• A comparison of the patterns of genetic diversity in young natural regeneration and mature trees would give insights into variation across generations in species which occur in scattered populations with high rates of migration (gene flow). It would also show whether natural regeneration adequately maintains genetic diversity across generations.

Group E (Mediterranean)

• Field trials (the RTEs) need to be older to give reliable estimates, so keeping these valuable experiments is encouraged. More traits, for instance physiological traits, should also be assessed.

• More research on seed orchard design and management.

• Research on silviculture practices for productive stands.

6. What would be the main topics you would like to read about in the Conclusions and Recommendations chapter of the book?

Group A (Central/Eastern Europe)

• End users would be interested in a review of prices and production of ash timber, compared with poplar and other species, in different countries and regions of Europe.

Group D (Northern Europe)

• Include findings from outside the project, e.g. from the RAP project, to give an overview of the current state of the art in Fraxinus genetic resources research. Discuss the findings in the context of:

• implications for European strategies relating to forest reproductive material.
  
• climate change.
  

Group E (Mediterranean)

• Practical guidelines for seed orchards (design and management).

• Collection and use of FRM (worth reporting first-year data from RTEs despite its limitations: see (5) above).

• To translate the recommendations to local languages (not only produce an English version).

Group C (Northern Europe)

The main need is for a coherent scientifically-based regional gene conservation policy. How can conservation, forest regeneration and productive forestry be managed together? How important is it to conserve historical patterns of genetic diversity? Opinions were divided on this: should we

• “trust in nature” (i.e. assume that populations are inherently robust, with enough diversity), or
  
• broaden the genetic base by planting material from other parts of the provenance region/zone, to increase the adaptive potential?
  
  

Further research is needed in the following areas:

• Provenance trials, for improved understanding of adaptive variation and how it relates to FRM (molecular adaptive makers may not be necessary, even if feasible).

• Gene flow: FRAXIGEN research has added to our knowledge on this.

• Historical patterns of diversity: again, FRAXIGEN research has added to our knowledge on this.

• How much selected/improved material can/should be used in native woodlands?

• Development of molecular markers for males.

• Improved seed collection guidelines as well as better practices.

• Is there a relationship between dieback (in Scandinavia) and haplotype? (this could be looked at in provenance trials).

• How should semi-natural woodlands (local material) be combined with productive stands (improved material) - or should they be kept separate? If so, how far apart should they be, and how would they interact?

The group also raised the issue of the use of EC Regulation 105/99, article 4.4 on conservation of genetic resources: this could be used in certain cases to prevent the import of ‘dangerous’ material – but it has not yet been applied in practice.

Friday 22 April

The second day of the meeting consisted of a field visit to the La Murta Nature Reserve. This reserve is located in the upper part of the La Murta Valley, close to the town of Alzira in Valencia Province. The reserve is of great botanical interest, and contains over 50 Spanish endemic species, as well as F. ornus, for which it is one of the Spanish intensive study sites under FRAXIGEN. Detailed phenological observations have been made here over two years (2002, 2003). The Valencian region is the only area of Spain where F. ornus occurs. Within this region it is found in warm, moist valleys, particularly on northern aspects, of limestone hills from 100 m to 1500 m, and La Murta is a typical example of this type of population. Also situated within the nature reserve are the spectacular ruins of the 15th century monastery of Santa Maria de la Murta.

Appendix 1
Participants at the International Users’ Group meeting